> DLS I didn’t realize that in this day
> and age there were still people who
> wanted to discriminate against the
> poor or the uneducated in this
> country.

I would support at least a minimal level of competence in decision making. It has nothing to do with what you suspect.

> Any kind of test or weighting of some votes against others
> would be inherently discriminatory. This is what the civil
> rights act and voting rights act passed in the 1960’s ended.

Actually, no. Insisting on minimal competence is not the same at all.

Otherwise, by your logic, we shouldn’t have driver testing, either…

> As long as you are going for conflict-of-interest
> democracy, you should be in favor of ending the
> revolving door that allows Congressional staffers
> and representatives to become lobbyists for the
> very industries that they used to regulate.

They shouldn’t be lobbyists at all.

“Industries … used to regulate”: The ironic thing, you probably realize, is that those in the industry are most competent to make decisions about it. (That’s not the same as lawmakers enriching themselves through gifts and campaign contributions.) You’ll never get an ideal regulation solution.

But as for the revolving door — during the 1992 riots I told people that the rioters should get off Main Street and go trash K Street in Washington.

I know history and many other things you do not.

Qualification and weighting according to true quality and knowledge of subject matter is hardly the same as race. Ahem.

DLS I didn’t realize that in this day and age there were still people who wanted to discriminate against the poor or the uneducated in this country. Any kind of test or weighting of some votes against others would be inherently discriminatory. This is what the civil rights act and voting rights act passed in the 1960’s ended.

As long as you are going for conflict-of-interest democracy, you should be in favor of ending the revolving door that allows Congressional staffers and representatives to become lobbyists for the very industries that they used to regulate.

2. Either move election day to a weekend or make it a holiday while leaving it on Tuesday or maybe even moving it to Wednesday to make it less likely that people will take advantage of a long weekend to travel.

3. Make people like DLS pass history so they might remember that we had a poll tax and why it was outlawed.

> If anything, I wish the suffrage (vote)
> were qualified and even weighted, and
> that there were conflict-of-interest
> exclusions such as receiving public
> assistance.

> DLS- This is not only undemocratic,

Technically, not so, as long as all were subject to the same rules.

Undemocratic as in anti-egalitarian, without a doubt.

Ideally the vote should be weighted by voter quality (knowledge, etc.) and taxes paid (the product of the two). Just weighting the vote by taxes paid is a welcome reform (won’t happen, but would be welcome). The evil nature of progressive taxation [insert ominous music] requires a sensible counter-balancing.

> it would be impossible to enforce. Who would
> determine the qualifications or whose vote
> should be weighted.

The government, which also would subject the citizens to testing (such as the citizenship test immigrants need to make, and basic questions, such as “Who is the Vice President of the United States?”). Or, if you want to feel worse, having a private contractor like Halliburton administer the tests, using Diebold electronic no-paper-trail testing equipment. (That’s the ticket — pun intended)

> Conflict of interest exclusion laws would vary
> with each major party trying to exclude members
> of the other side from voting. As far as I’m concerned
> everyone should be encouraged to vote, excluding
> only felons and illegal immigrants.

The most outrageous claims (by the Dems, of course [tm]) for conflicts of interest should not be honored.

Don’t worry. Qualification and more so, weighting, never will happen. If anything, the Dems will increase their base by demanding illegal immigrants, felons, and children vote. (The far left already wants children to vote; Ralph Nader is among those who have wanted voting extended down to age sixteen.)

http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=28

I could not disagree more. As Madison knew, you can’t expect good people in politics without good institutions. (His famous, “if all men were angels…” quote.)

Yes, of course, we want “real politicians who are aligned with the real concerns of real voters” but how do you align those interests? With good institutions that make it in their interest for politicians to court and be responsive “real” voters.

Maybe every couple of centuries or so we ought to reconsider whether our existing institutions (”procedures” and “protocol”) are still working. Especially since what we have is not even what Madison devised, but rather a product of a logroll among the various interests represented in state legislatures of the late 18th century. The country and world have changed just a bit since the compromises were struck.

Anyway, this sort of thing is an ongoing theme at F&V.

> Enact ballot access reform that would repeal Democrat
> & Republican enacted laws that make it extremely
> difficult for third parties and Independents from getting
> on the ballot

Such laws should be struck down as unconstitutionally discriminatory.

Incidentally, I waver right of center when I waver, as a rule, but I have no problem at all with proportional representation and 5-6+ political parties in this country, even if the GOP, the Dems, the Beltway crowd, and publications like the Wall Street Journal have contempt for the idea.

> Believe it or not, not all people in this country care about
> or are as up to date on politics as the people on this blog.

My radical friend in DC has reminded me when I gripe about ignorant voters that voting often tends to be self-selecting, anyway. The ignorant and lazy are among those who neglect voting.

DLS- This is not only undemocratic, it would be impossible to enforce. Who would determine the qualifications or whose vote should be weighted. Conflict of interest exclusion laws would vary with each major party trying to exclude members of the other side from voting. As far as I’m concerned everyone should be encouraged to vote, excluding only felons and illegal immigrants.

(As is often the case, the best stuff is in my readers’ comments, not what I had to say!)

Perhaps it could be coupled with some incentive, rather than punishment.

At my local precinct, you get a sticker for voting!

On a more serious note I agree that compulsory voting, whatever its merits, is very un-American. Getting constituents fired up enough to go to the polls and get out the vote is part of what makes politics vibrant.

Forcing people to vote is the flip side to forcibly preventing people from voting. In a true free society, people should neither be DENIED the right to vote nor FORCED to vote against their will.

Low voter turnout cannot be attributed solely to apathy. Many people do not vote simply because they either abhor the choices we are given or because they have trouble taking time off from work in order to vote. If we, as a country, truly wanted to improve voter turnout, we would

1) Enact ballot access reform that would repeal Democrat & Republican enacted laws that make it extremely difficult for third parties and Independents from getting on the ballot, and

2) Move Election Day to a weekend, when more people would be able to vote.

Believe it or not, not all people in this country care about or are as up to date on politics as the people on this blog. Some adults out there wouldn’t even be able to tell you who the Secretary of State or the Speaker of the House is or which party supports which political platforms.

Granted, there are a lot of ignorant people out there that already do vote. But I hardly see the virtue of encouraging those ignorant people how don’t vote. And I definitely reject the idea of forcing these people to vote.

Casting a vote is an extremely important decision that should be taken seriously. Important decisions should be made because you WANT to make them–not because the government FORCES you to.

-In my personal experience, immigrants from countries with repressive regimes (Russia, etc.) equate voting with repression.
They see not voting as an expression of freedom.
-Good or bad, the fights would be huge over the civil liberties issue.

Perhaps it could be coupled with some incentive, rather than punishment.